Here is the issue. The FA uses hay and pallets, and if that is the only thing you have to base your fire attack knowledge on, be careful out there. I have been very lucky in my career to have a vast amount of time on the knob with my 2 departments, both at real incidents and aquired structures. I have run and facillited over 20 aquired structure burns of various sizes and fuel loading (probably to manys dismay) and have had the opportuinty to test the 2 types of nozzles and there uses heavily. Actually the first 2 fires of each aquired structure is a nozlle demonstration for the newer members and it has been one of the most valuable tools I have done as the training officer.
Each piece at my full time FD has a SB and a fog nozzle available for attack. I prefer the SB all the way. Less moving parts, better reach, deeper penetration, less psi, maneuverability, etc...Now I know the fog heads will say,"well, what about hydraulic ventilation?" I agree, hydraulic ventilation with a fog is very nice, but I would rather put water on the fire than out of the window. Fog nozzles do have their applications(AFFF, hydraulic ventilation, car fires, etc...) but me and my crew will pull a SB each and every time. At my part time FD, we just got the combination fog/SB abortions. I am truck guy, so perhaps I am not as educated in the issue as my engine counterparts, but I have compared the nozzles side by side and the SB/fog combo nozzles do not have the same reach s a SB and even the conventional fog nozzle beats it out with adjustablility of the stream and gpm. We all know, GPM vs BTU is what kills fire.